My thoughts on the Playboy Thing.

I haven't posted about the Playboy/Wonder Woman cover controversy yet, mostly because I'm in a very strange position as I see it.

I actually don't see a problem with it. It's the usual sort of showy borderline-parody that I'd expect from Playboy. I don't necessarily think it's any different than that Sex-in-the-City chick posing nude on an Enterprise set.

At the same time, most arguments in favor of it actually tick me off a lot more than the arguments against it.

First of all, there's the "why are you mad? Have you never read a WW comic?" folks. Which, for one thing, is a very stupid question. Of COURSE the people who are mad read Wonder Woman. They wouldn't CARE otherwise.

I'm not saying all Wonder Woman fans are bothered by this, but clearly some of them are. And even if YOU don't see the difference between the output as seen in the comic with the Playboy cover/article, someone does. It doesn't take much to disagree and still show some respect to fellow fans.

Then there's the "Well, what do you expect? She's in a BATHING SUIT!" set.

A bathing suit is not body paint. A bathing suit is a piece of public apparel that a woman can wear to go to the beach, or a pool, or some other place where such a garment is appropriate. I'm fairly certain, in contrast, that body paint alone would not prevent someone from being arrested for indecent exposure.

No one's saying anyone has to like the costume, but there's still a notable difference between a woman in a bathing suit and a naked woman wearing paint in the shape of a bathing suit.

Finally there's the "Marston was a perv!" set. Which is particularly annoying. YES, Marston had a kink. YES, he was open about it. And YES, Wonder Woman did spend a lot of time tied up.

But she was tied up FULLY CLOTHED, thank you. The majority of his kinks were NOT in public view via this comic. This comic was designed for public consumption with at least an eye toward young girls reading it. The original author's private proclivities are not relevant to whether the use of the image in WW is appropriate in Playboy.

Now that said, I don't have a problem with the actual article. In my opinion, it's a fairly standard parody that probably won't have any adverse effect on young people buying the comic because young people probably will not be exposed to Playboy anyway. (And those that are will probably be worldly enough not to let it hurt their opinion of the real character.) I don't think it's a bad thing that Wonder Woman is a product that clearly appeals to men as well as women, and that straight men find the costume erotic. It's part of marketing. It's what makes a successful product. And to be honest, straight men seem to find the most bizarre things sexy anyway. :-P

I don't think it's fair to compare this cover with the poor artist that Ragnell's linked here. I think that argument makes a troublesome assumption. Well, a few actually. The first assumption is that DC gave permission for the use of the image. This may be true and I'm willing to operate under the assumption that it is. Okay. But then it's not necessarily fair to compare a body painted Wonder Woman to homoerotic Batman because we don't know the legal issues behind it.

First and foremost, did that unfortunate artist actually have permission to use the likeness? If Playboy does and that artist doesn't, then DC is perfectly justified in permitting the one use to go on while banning the other. If this is the case, it doesn't matter if we liked the art or if we think the cover is just as problematic as the art, it's a question of copyright and trademark. Now, why might DC not have given permission to the artist? I don't know. Maybe they see a difference somehow. Maybe they thought he sucked. Maybe the artist just didn't ask.

Ultimately, I don't think any of us knows enough about that situation's particular facts to make it a workable argument for either side. There are too many unknowns.

Finally, I don't have a problem with Ms. Fallon being compared with Lynda Carter. Lynda Carter was an awesome Wonder Woman, but she's not exactly Meryl Streep. I'm sure her career has it's odd points too. I don't think Ms. Fallon's quite had such a long lasting/iconic role, but I don't find the comparison a travesty. And as for Wonder Woman herself...

Well, honestly, I've always thought of Diana as the idealized inner woman. The tall, glorious, powerful goddess-type that's supposed to be the epitome of female potential within us all. And ultimately, that includes girls who are getting paid to pose nude in Playboy.